The irony here is fascinating. A group of anti-Israel protesters were sent scattering as alarms went off in Jerusalem indicating a missile attack. The rocket of course was launched by Gaza’s ruling Hamas movement. Fortunately for these anti-Israel protesters, the missile missed them, landing instead in an olive grove.

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–

CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–

BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.

The audacity of this woman to equate the realization by Romney and Ryan that the American people, and even more so, the families of those who died in Benghazi, have the right to ask questions about what happened and why it happened, to a political ploy is jaw-dropping.

This is an issue Ms. Cutter, because the people want to know why the administration didn’t do more to protect these Americans, why they covered up what really happened, and why you and your cohorts continue to view the terrorist attack in Benghazi as a ‘bump in the road’.

Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration’s handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an “accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.

The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.

The letter marks the first time congressional Democrats have so directly expressed their dissatisfaction with the administration’s response to inquiries about the attacks, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and raised questions about U.S. security throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.

A Kerry aide confirmed that the committee intended to enlist the support of Republicans and Democrats and said the letter would likely be sent Friday. Another aide told The Examiner that the panel’s 10 Democrats and nine Republicans plan to sign it.

In other words, recognition of obvious bulls*** has now gone bipartisan.

It has been 15 days since the attack in Libya. And where are we? President Obama, who first confidently (but incorrectly) declared that the attack grew spontaneously out of a protest over a YouTube video, has finally admitted that it was an act of terrorism directed against Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. There was no protest before the attack, we now know.

We now know this because of journalists in Libya. We know this because of Libya’s own officials. But we know hardly anything from our own government about what happened in Libya because most of what we were told by the White House was a lie.

The President boldly vowed that the perpetrators — he declined to call them terrorists at the time — would be brought to justice. To that end, he called in the FBI. More than a week later, the FBI flew a team to Tripoli, but that is as far as they got. They have not traveled to Benghazi. They have not examined the scene. They have not collected evidence. They have not interviewed the people the Libyans have arrested. It has been fifteen days since the attack.

Why is this not a scandal yet?

The answer is that the President’s name is no longer George Bush. Had this obvious cover up occurred under W, it would be an epic media played scandal. But today, the media provides cover for a President coming under attack from even his closest political friends, such as Kerry.

That said, it’s actually worse than simply not providing answers that the American people deserve. It’s the active lying prior to, and since, the ensuing attacks.

As we reported earlier, the administration did indeed have advance warning of imminent attacks on 9/11.

CBN News Terrorism Analyst Erick Stakelbeck called Benghazi an al Qaeda “hot spot” and agrees that there was threat there well before the film’s release.

“For the Obama administration to continue to argue that these attacks were just spontaneous flies in the face of reality,” Stakelbeck said.

“One day before the attacks, Ayman al-Zawahri — who’s al Qaeda’s global leader — specifically called for al Qaeda attacks in Libya,” he explained. “One day later we see those attacks.”

This is a cover up of the highest order. The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected. The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.

And now, they know that there is evidence that something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans.As Ed Morrisey writes, the administration “got caught flat-footed on the anniversary of 9/11 in the one part of the world where an American diplomatic mission would be most vulnerable — and they’ve been trying to deny it ever since.”The American people deserve the truth.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it was a “terrorist attack” that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three others, and she says the U.S. will not rest until those responsible are brought to justice. Clinton told reporters Friday at the State Department that, quote, “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And she said the U.S. would track down, quote, the “terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

During testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen acknowledged that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack. When asked by Senator Joe Lieberman about the deaths of four Americans, he said, “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our Embassy.”

But nowhere in his speech to the United Nations today will you see the President of the United States refer to the attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, as terrorism.

Why would we? The President is still clinging to the desperate notion that a video that nobody has seen is what sparked the ‘spontaneous’ attack that just so happened to occur on September 11th, in which protesters just so happened to be carrying rocket propelled grenades launchers.

An excerpt from today’s speech:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

The biggest problem with blaming radical Muslim rage on a video, aside from the common sense evidence that indicates it played no role in the attacks, is that Ambassador Stevens himself saw other reasons to be concerned about his safety.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper recently explained, using Ambassador Stevens’ journal that, “Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”

The President went on:

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

Apparently however, the answer wasn’t enshrined in our laws just a couple of weeks ago, when the President’s administration was calling for YouTube to pull the controversial video.

The irony here is that perhaps the President’s unwillingness to stand up against terrorist attacks, and to stand for freedom of speech, may be what leads a person to say awful things about him.